Bush to silence Clark, RE: National Security...Yeah Right

[wndycty]

CLARK WILL TESTIFY IN SECRET AGAINST MILOSEVIC,
ADMINISTRATION SAYS

Tom Hundley - Knight-Ridder Tribune
December 03, 2003
LONDON -- The Bush administration has imposed heavy
secrecy and censorship measures on the testimony of
retired Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander
seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, when
he takes the stand later this month at the war crimes
trial of Slobodan Milosevic.

The administration's action will blunt the drama of
what many expected to be crucial moment in Milosevic's
lengthy trial and perhaps one of the defining moments
in the presidential campaign of Clark, who defeated
the Yugoslav leader in the Kosovo campaign.

At the insistence of State Department's legal office,
the courtroom's public gallery will be cleared when
Clark is called to testify Dec. 15 and 16 in The
Hague. Cameras that normally broadcast the proceedings
on closed circuit television and the Internet will be
blacked out.
-snip-

http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/03/3fcd71b815e8e

[knowledgeispower]

1. This is an outrage

On what grounds can they possibly do this? The proceedings are normally open to the public, so what is so special about Clark's testimony that it can't be? Other than political gain for Bush, of course.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. you just answered your own question

Political gain for Bush, of course, is it ever anything else?

[bif]

2. Typical move

from the most secretive administration in history.

[bushh8ter]

3. They don't want any footage to be

available to Clark for political ads obviously.

On edit:Fat finger syndrome - can't spell political.

[maddezmom]

4. pathetic yet usual behavior from the administration n/t

[slinkerwink]

5. this is just absolutely damning of Bush.....

Clark should be allowed to testify with a public audience, but it looks like Bush's afraid of ANY presidential candidate that looks like they could topple him from power.

[Mistress Quickly]

6. Has Clark

made a statement about this?

[returnable]

10. From the article

"Clark declined to comment on the restrictions that
have been imposed on him. At his campaign
headquarters, spokesman Matt Bennett said 'the
campaign has no involvement at all in Gen. Clark's
testimony.'"

[Mistress Quickly]

red-faced

Sorry, should have read the article.

:dunce:

[returnable]

24. No worries n/t

[democratreformed]

7. I heard about this weeks ago

and I am still not sure what to make of it.

[deminflorida]

8. They are at a complete loss as to what to do about....

Wesley Clark. This is a desperate move, and there will be many more down the road. Clark by stating that Bush met with the families of British War dead and has not attended a single American funeral caused Bush to dance all the way to Iraq for the Thanksgiving holidays. This is in one way a good thing that Clark has them dancing to his own music.

[wndycty]

9. Kick

:kick:

[Cocoa]

11. maybe a bootleg video will show up

i'd like to see that happen.

[returnable]

12. Josh Marshall weighs in...

From TPM:

Two explanations suggest themselves. One is more administration payback against Clark -- an effort to keep him out of the spotlight for political reasons. But a more likely and prosaic explanation is the administration's contempt for international law and legal institutions.

Administration officials demanded a similar level of censorship on possible testimony from Richard Holbrooke last year. And court officials, for now at least, decided not to call him at all.

So many bad motives to choose from, right? In this case, for them, it's probably a twofer.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_11_30.html

[wndycty]

17. Thanks for the tip on this. . .

. . .missed you last night. You should see the new All Patriot No Act buttons we now have with Clark's face on it! They are awesome.

[returnable]

21. Looking forward to seeing them!

Wish I could've been there last night :(

[wndycty]

33. They went over real well last night. . .

. . .a lot of people who were not part of our group were asking for the buttons.

[returnable]

44. Sweet! n/t

[mikehiggins]

13. No biggee

The actual testimony will be kept under wraps, but the fact that Clark was called to testify is good enough. If Milosevich is convicted, as is likely, it'll be pretty easy to work into an ad that the people in this country can respond to...

Opening shot of Milosovich

voice over: This man killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, and tried to kill millions more.

Shot of Clark

voice over: This man stopped him.

Shot of Albanian Kosovars mobbing Clark

voice over: These people say this man saved their lives

Shot of Clark on the campaign trail

Voice over: In times like these, we need someone in office who knows how to get the job done.

Vote Clark for President...

or something along those lines

It's a lot easier to come up with this stuff when you don't have to make things up.

[eleny]

19. Quite a contrast to Bush's...

sneaking in and out of Baghdad on Thanksgiving. Great ad idea, btw!

[returnable]

23. But it IS a biggee

This goes beyond stifling Clark's ability to create a campaign ad.

This is an international court. It's being watched by the world, and European nations in particular. They will be denied the opportunity to hear what Clark has to say.

Clark's testimony is a key element of the trial and this administration is seeking to bury it.

This goes beyond petty American partisan battles. This is a prime example of the Bush administration's contempt for international law.

[alfredo]

31. Suggest that to the clark campaign.

Or what about Bush does not want the American people to know about how Clark brought Milosovich to justice. they are censoring Clark's testimony at Milosovich's trial. Is Bush afraid of Clark, or is there something else Bush is trying to hide from the American people.

[Bread and Circus]

32. frik an A, dude, that would be an awesome commercial...

you should get paid!

[Fleshdancer]

14. Ok Clark supporters....

Come up with a plan and let us know what we can do to support Clark for this (and don't say "vote for him in the primaries")

Seriously, what can we do?

[wndycty]

22. Vote for him in the primaries. . .

. . .but seriously, I think we all need to kick and scream and make sure that it is know far and wide that administration is shutting up Clark.

[returnable]

29. Bingo

"I think we all need to kick and scream and make sure that it is know far and wide that administration is shutting up Clark."

There's not much we can do in terms of getting the Administration to reverse its policy.

But ya can certainly let everyone you know what they are up to.

Remember, this isn't just about the Administration censoring Clark - it's about them subverting and politicizing an international legal proceeding.

I would think that'd concern most folks, regardless of who they support in the primaries.

[Toucano]

27. We have to get the press to ask for an explanation

because it is so clearly a political move by Bush.

There is no other explanation. But I want to hear the one they invent. :) Will they use the old standby: National Security?

We have to raise the question on call-in shows, message boards, etc. and really make it an issue.

"Why is the Bush administration censoring the historic testimony of the victorious former U.S. General Wes Clark in the Hague trial of Milosovich? How can they deny Americans access to this proud moment in our nation's history?"

It can be used to the advantage of all candidates because it hammers down on Bush's contempt for the people. In being called to testify, General Clark is a representative of the United States, not the Dems or his campaign. This is an affront to the American people and the historic record.

But as a Clark supporter, I would add that I see this as further evidence that the Bush machine is afraid of what Clark can do to their chances for re-election.

[truthspeaker]

35. ha ha!

The press - ask for an explanation - you're killing me!

[Toucano]

41. I know, I know.

[wndycty]

28. Also send it to [email protected]

:kick:

[Field Of Dreams]

37. Could some ex-pats in the area of the Hague...

organize some sort of demonstration outside to draw additional attention to the issue?

Any DU'ers in that part of Europe?

There is an ex-pats for Clark website that was recently started I believe.

[wndycty]

38. Well we need to be careful. . .

. . .we cannot turn the Hague into a circus, but there might be something that is appropriate.

[BootinUp]

52. that's the spirit!

you are restoring my faith in this party....

I think the only way to address this is by hammering the press on it. And hope they will bring it up at White House Press conferences. If the liberal/progressive journalists talk it up that would help.

[wndycty]

55. Exactly

:kick:

[dfong63]

15. wait a minute...

i thought the trial of Milosevic was supposed to be an independent, impartial, international judicial proceeding. if that were the case, then how is it that the Bush administration is able to unilaterally decide the conditions under which one of the witnesses will testify?

rather than seeing things from the point of view of the witness (Clark), look at things from the perspective of the accused. keeping the testimony open to the public could be an important method of ensuring that the accused gets a fair trial. this is a terrible precedent. if the Bush administration can do this, they can effectively have Milosevic (or anyone) tried in secret, just based on their say-so.

[grannylib]

16. Well of course they can...they run the world, hadn't you heard??

[Renew Deal]

20. That's a great point.

I didn't think of it that way. I guess that can silence him for "national security reasons." But I don't see how that is fair in an international court. I mean what are they trying to protect us from when it comes to Milosevic? It's total BS.

[Spazito]

25. I believe that, because Clark was acting under the auspices of...

the US during the Kosovo war, Clark needs their permission to testify and the Bush cabal used this to hammer the court. I believe their position was: agree to our terms, that being Clark's testimony to be given in secret and we get to review that testimony prior to any publication or we don't give our permission.

The court wants Clark's testimony badly enough that they have agreed to this. The US government has to prove to the court, after the testimony,that anything they want to withhold is a national security issue or everything will become public albeit by way of a transcript rather than live coverage.

[kentuck]

18. How would this impact "national security"?

Just curious...

[TacticalPeek]

26. It would impact KKKarl and aWol's job security.

And they are annointed by Gawd to save us from Satan and national destruction, and to have a second term.

QED

:silly:

[wndycty]

56. Exactly. . .

It seems like someone is trying to protect his job.

[HuckleB]

30. Another reminder of what we're up against.

And why Bush must go.

[_NorCal_D_]

34. Unbelievable

Another pitiful example of Shrub using any means necessary to get re-elected. Even outright censorship is not out of the question. :grr:

[wndycty]

36. Make sure you e-mail this to as many people as possible. . .

. . .asking what is Bush afraid of?

[_NorCal_D_]

45. Indeed.

I'll be sure to get the word out. :thumbsup:

[jumptheshadow]

39. What about this scenario?

The administration reviews the transcripts and releases parts of the cross-examination. And those would be the sections that will make Clark look very, very bad when taken out of context...

[wndycty]

40. Would you be surprised?

I wouldn't.

[returnable]

43. Didn't I warn ya a couple weeks ago...

...about my tinfoil hat concerns re: Clark's trip to the Hague? :scared:

[wndycty]

46. True

Very true!

[jumptheshadow]

49. And thinking about it...

They wouldn't outright release the sliced and diced transcripts. They would leak them to somebody like Novak or Drudge.

[Spazito]

42. I think the Clark campaign could use this quite well...

by saying that, regardless of the restrictions put upon him by the Bush administration, General Clark is committed to doing the right thing by testifying under any conditions.

By saying that, it points out: 1. That General Clark believes in doing the right thing regardless of political roadblocks

and 2: Puts the question of the restrictions front and center.

[ThomWV]

48. Well?

This is simply not acceptable. That Clark not be able, because of the heavy hand of our Administration, to openly testify before the world in the case against Milosevic is nothing short of an Outrage.

Get on the E-Mail at least to your own Congressional Representatives and to the news services even if you do consider them (either group, or both for that matter) to be the Administration's whores. Demand an answer as to how and why this can be so from them anyway, even a whore can only take so much.

This is just an outrage, it is no less, and at the very least there should be a concerted voice of Democrats in the Congress to demand that the Administration not lay its heavy hand on this Citizen and certainly not lay its heavy hand on legal process outside of this country. This is an outrage not only against each and every one of us but against the world. And the Press, no matter which way they might lean surely can not condone this imposition of the strength of the state for no more purpose than to remove the spotlight a potential political oponent, and remove even their own ability to cover the events of the world. Is that not what the press is for?

I'm just going to cut and paste that first and second paragraph into E-Mails to everyone I can think of in the press and congress.

Thom

[wndycty]

50. Kick

:kick:

[wndycty]

51. Can we get at least 20 DU'ers to e-mail CROSSFIRE

Does anyone have the e-mail address?

[Toucano]

57. I couldn't find it on their site.

Anybody else have any luck?

[maddezmom]

53. one of the great researchers here should look into connections of Bush I

administration and Slobodon, if it hasn't already been done. I just did a little search on yahoo and there seems to be a connection. Lawrence Eagleburger and Brent Scowcroft names popped up.

[wndycty]

54. Kick

:kick:

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. Crossfire....questions and comments

questions and comments. Go here:http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?7

I think General Clark should give a speech about this. He needs to make Bush look like the fool he is for using this for political gain. He should mention it every chance he gets!

I'm off to write Crossfire about it.

[FrenchieCat]

59. This is why Bush want's Clark to disappear....

He's fucking running scared! That chickenhawk!

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. Here's the email address for Crossfire

[email protected]